Synopsis

The petitioner-assessee challenged a reassessment notice dated 30th August 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016‑17, and the consequent assessment order dated 29th March 2026, on the ground that the notice was time‑barred. The limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 at the relevant time was six years. The respondent-department raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition should not be entertained because the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal. The Delhi High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Magadh Sugar Mills and Executive Engineer v. Seetaram Rice Mill, held that where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction (the notice being per‑se time‑barred), the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner had raised the jurisdictional objection before the Assessing Officer, but it remained unheeded. Consequently, the court quashed the notice and the assessment order, allowing the writ petition.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar

Date of Judgment: 8th April 2026

Citation: 2026:DHC:3111-DB (W.P.(C) 4543/2026)

Core Law: Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 148 (notice for reassessment), Section 149 (time limit for notice); Constitution of India – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 148 (notice for reassessment of income escaping assessment), Section 149 (time limit for notice under Section 148)

• Constitution of India – Article 226 (power of High Courts to issue writs)

Key legal principles applied

• Alternate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction: The existence of a statutory appeal does not divest the High Court of its power under Article 226 when the impugned order or proceeding is fundamentally void for lack of jurisdiction. The rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies is a rule of policy, discretion and convenience, not an absolute bar.

• Exceptions to the alternate remedy rule: Writ jurisdiction can be exercised when (a) fundamental rights are violated; (b) principles of natural justice are breached; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) vires of legislation is challenged.

• Jurisdictional error goes to the root of the matter: If a notice is issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation, it is per‑se void and without jurisdiction. An assessment order based on such a notice is also void. Requiring the assessee to go through the appellate process would be an exercise in futility.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.